I'm an Intensive Care Nurse in Australia and am triple-vaxxed Pfizer. I received the vaccine because I felt a sense of responsibility not only to my patients to protect them but also to my wife - who is also a Nurse, is triple vaxxed herself *and* has Multiple Sclerosis - for which she receives treatment that renders her immunocompromise…
I'm an Intensive Care Nurse in Australia and am triple-vaxxed Pfizer. I received the vaccine because I felt a sense of responsibility not only to my patients to protect them but also to my wife - who is also a Nurse, is triple vaxxed herself *and* has Multiple Sclerosis - for which she receives treatment that renders her immunocompromised. It is about protecting those in the community who are more vulnerable - something which seems to escape most people in their pig headedness to voice 'their rights'.
None of the subjects interviewed seem to have given compelling reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated. The science behind mRNA vaccines is voluminous and they have not presented any significant side effects since their rollout last year. They are the most monitored vaccines ever distributed so that if any of the known side effects evolved into something previously unseen, recipients can be assessed and treated accordingly.
Vaccine mandates are necessary occurance in the situation we find ourselves. I have little sympathy for anyone who refuses to receive the vaccination.
Ok, I'll bite. If mRNA vaccine technology is so voluminous and the vaccines have not presented any significant side effects why is it that Big Pharma finds it necessary to hide behind the liability protection that descends from Emergency Use Authorization?
Because from a corporate point of view, they'd be nuts to NOT take the liability waivers offered. The waivers aren't just to protect vaccine-makers' profits, it's to get them to make vaccines at all. Companies were getting out of the vaccine business entirely because other drugs gave them better profits and because vaccine liability suits were expensive. So, they were choosing to get out of the business entirely, which would have left us wide-open to the next pandemic. The feds decided to protect the domestic vaccine industry so we would have vaccines.
Agreed. My comment has to do with the fact that the EUA is not intended to be a long term accommodation. If the OP’s assertions are correct, then there should no longer be a reason to continue operating under the EUA.
"No" is not a sufficient and compelling reason for everything you want to do. In our society, we constant balance one person's or group's rights against another's. A free society's goal is to let as many people do what they want for no reason other than "I want to," but that's not always the case.
""No" is not a sufficient and compelling reason for everything you want to do."
Nice straw man. I never said anything about "everything" I want to do in our society. I said "no" is a sufficient and compelling reason in a free society for not wanting to be jabbed (with nonvaccine experimental drugs for which there is literally zero long-term safety or efficacy data).
Sorry you misread my intent, or that I wasn't clear enough. I was supporting your notion that there are compelling reasons to not get the vaccine---even though I came to a different conclusion and got it anyway. My point was that we balance rights all the time, and the Covid vaccine is yet another issue that has more than one correct point of view.
That is gracious of you, and I appreciate it. But I'm sure I could have written it more clearly. We march on, all of us, trying our best for clarity and Not Getting Covid!
I think you both have touched on a central point here. As a libertarian, I often must wrestle with these competing values.
I also think you will find that many people can't grasp this struggle at all because, as Andrew the Great! pointed out, they don't understand the basic conception of rights articulated by the Founding Fathers.
In another context, I put it this way: The question isn't why. It's why not? That is, why can't I own X or do Y? And the burden is on society to provide very compelling evidence that I can't.
Many people have something like the inverse conception in their heads. They assume they must provide a compelling reason to society for why they should be allowed to own X or do Y. For instance, they assume their only choices are get vaccinated or come up with a "valid exemption."
Your comment is well-said, Jordan, thanks. Many rules in our society meet the "provide compelling evidence" test: stopping at red lights to prevent auto accidents is universally accepted, as is "don't murder people." Other rules are passed only for political control purposes: New York requires a politician to decide if you are "worthy" of getting a concealed carry license, and "self-defense" is not a "good enough reason."
Yes, as a NY (Hudson Valley) resident, I am well aware. I was actually thinking about guns when I formulated the "why not?" question. The question/objection on my mind was people who said: "Why would anyone need an AR-15?" It struck me as the wrong question, akin to asking, "Why would anyone need a super-charged muscle car?"
Of course, no one *needs* an AR-15 or muscle car. But as free citizens coming from an American tradition, we should be thinking more in terms of wants and asking: "Why WOULDN'T someone have an AR-15 or a super-charged muscle car if they want one?"
And then we would have to answer that question with very compelling reasons backed by strong evidence.
Not to be argumentative, but even the point you made about red lights is worth considering further. I was reminded of "shared space" theory and the researchers who showed that even in that case, it is sometimes better to ask: Why not? As in: Why not let people figure out intersections on their own?
It turns out that it might actually *reduce* accidents and fatalities (in certain cases):
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm curious. You wrote: "It is about protecting those in the community who are more vulnerable." What if it turns out that being vaccinated has little or no impact on one's ability to transmit the virus? Would you change your mind and support these people's right to choose?
You also wrote: "The science behind mRNA vaccines is voluminous and they have not presented any significant side effects since their rollout last year." My understanding is that all new drugs are evaluated short term and longer term because not all side effects and issues come to light in the short term. (An example would be Merck's Vioxx, which it took nearly 10 years to discover could be deadly). So: What if it turns out that these vaccines have longer-term side effects, such as raising the risk of heart attacks? Would you change your mind and support these people's right to choose?
I am genuinely interested in your perspective since I am coming from the other side and will obviously have blind spots because of my bias. My guess is that perhaps we have different assumptions, which is why I am asking these questions. I appreciate any engagement you're willing to offer.
VAERS is terrible. We have no clue how many people are dying from the vaccine. People are vaccinated in stadiums and random pharmacies and Walmarts and then they leave. I’m sure you think it’s like 4 or 5 people who have died.
20,000 is the number of people under 40 who have died total. I said ‘healthy’ and that number is likely far below 3,000.
Okay sorry I’m sure AT LEAST 10,000 of the 20,000 young people who died from this disease that targets medical conditions were perfectly healthy.
Does that make you feel better? Maybe they were ALL healthy!!!!
I’m not digging through spreadsheets for you right now because you argue by tediously demanding a link when I’m stating the obvious. We both know it’s 3,000 at most and likely much less.
Yes you are quite literally suggesting that I should be digging through spreadsheets because I absolutely would have to dig through spreadsheets in order to find that number.
So first you demand tedious work to verify the obvious and now you are lying about your demand for tedious work.
"The science behind mRNA vaccines is voluminous and they have not presented any significant side effects since their rollout last year. They are the most monitored vaccines ever distributed so that if any of the known side effects evolved into something previously unseen, recipients can be assessed and treated accordingly."
None of what you claim is true. Moreover, if the vaccines were as perfect as you describe, vaccinated people would not contract COVID. But they do. This is not a one-size fits all matter and your lack of respect for the rights of individuals is appalling.
Bruce - unless you can show me exactly where I am wrong, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take my 26 years of Nursing/Medical expertise over your bloviating. You're not covering yourself in glory today mate.
There are people with far more experience and scientific knowledge than you have, eminent epidemiologists and physicians with doctoral level knowledge and intellect, who have argued for herd immunity over lockdowns. Unfortunately they were overruled by people like you who argue more from emotion than science, and so we find ourselves in this mess today of prolonged lockdowns that accomplish nothing. Florida, by the way, now has the lowest rates of death and illness from Wuhan/Covid19 virus even after eliminating all mandates on vaccines, masks, or closures.
Not sure what you do for a living but if you did it for 26 years--I would trust your opinion on how to do it over information that I find on the web. That is the whole problem today--people think they are smarter than skilled people in their field just b/c they can google a conspiracy theory of which they have not tangible skills or experience to feed upon to help them decipher the points of misinformation.
What if someone else with 26 years' experience had an opposite opinion?
Now what do you do??
I'm not smarter IN MEDICINE than the 26-year doctor. But I have reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, and I can apply them to nonmedical matters. Even to stuff I find [gasp!] on the web.
Like when a different 26-year doctor has a different opinion.
Interestingly, you haven't touched on the issues of the good doc's infallibility, omniscience, influence by politics or money, etc. He's a stranger (and one who *professes* to have 26 years' experience; how do we know that *that's* even true? After all, Dean M.'s assertion as to his expertise is found on...the web.
Much like fiat currencies, appeals to authority (credentials) have also succumbed to widespread devaluation. Notwithstanding, the bonafides of the doctor interviewed by Bari a few episodes back trumps your 'not bloviating' stance.
There is actually quite a lot of physics in being a doctor and it takes as much or more smarts than computer science--just a different skill set. And, you have to be able to decipher research which is what many blowhards here have difficulty with.
I’m not talking about that level of physics. The pre req was 100 level when I was in school.
This does not mean doctors can’t be ‘smart’. I’m sure some of them also could have gone on to high levels in subjects that require more than simply reading and remembering things.
Becoming a doctor takes a lot of discipline. That’s laudable. Although I’m skeptical it will even require discipline for much longer.
Med schools are about to fall victim to woke/antiracism ideology, to boost the number of "under represented" minorities in the profession. Pretty soon, we'll have to go to Mexico to find a good doctor. But hey at least the medical profession will look like Grey's Anatomy cast!
I'm an Intensive Care Nurse in Australia and am triple-vaxxed Pfizer. I received the vaccine because I felt a sense of responsibility not only to my patients to protect them but also to my wife - who is also a Nurse, is triple vaxxed herself *and* has Multiple Sclerosis - for which she receives treatment that renders her immunocompromised. It is about protecting those in the community who are more vulnerable - something which seems to escape most people in their pig headedness to voice 'their rights'.
None of the subjects interviewed seem to have given compelling reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated. The science behind mRNA vaccines is voluminous and they have not presented any significant side effects since their rollout last year. They are the most monitored vaccines ever distributed so that if any of the known side effects evolved into something previously unseen, recipients can be assessed and treated accordingly.
Vaccine mandates are necessary occurance in the situation we find ourselves. I have little sympathy for anyone who refuses to receive the vaccination.
Your country has turned into a totalitarian hellhole thanks to arrogant people like you, mate.
Ok, I'll bite. If mRNA vaccine technology is so voluminous and the vaccines have not presented any significant side effects why is it that Big Pharma finds it necessary to hide behind the liability protection that descends from Emergency Use Authorization?
Because from a corporate point of view, they'd be nuts to NOT take the liability waivers offered. The waivers aren't just to protect vaccine-makers' profits, it's to get them to make vaccines at all. Companies were getting out of the vaccine business entirely because other drugs gave them better profits and because vaccine liability suits were expensive. So, they were choosing to get out of the business entirely, which would have left us wide-open to the next pandemic. The feds decided to protect the domestic vaccine industry so we would have vaccines.
Agreed. My comment has to do with the fact that the EUA is not intended to be a long term accommodation. If the OP’s assertions are correct, then there should no longer be a reason to continue operating under the EUA.
"None of the subjects interviewed seem to have given compelling reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated."
Y'know, "no" is a sufficient and compelling reason...in a free society.
But here's 18 for you, in case "freedom" rankles your sense of tyranny:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/reasons-not-getting-covid-vaccine/
"No" is not a sufficient and compelling reason for everything you want to do. In our society, we constant balance one person's or group's rights against another's. A free society's goal is to let as many people do what they want for no reason other than "I want to," but that's not always the case.
""No" is not a sufficient and compelling reason for everything you want to do."
Nice straw man. I never said anything about "everything" I want to do in our society. I said "no" is a sufficient and compelling reason in a free society for not wanting to be jabbed (with nonvaccine experimental drugs for which there is literally zero long-term safety or efficacy data).
So what else ya got besides straw men?
Sorry you misread my intent, or that I wasn't clear enough. I was supporting your notion that there are compelling reasons to not get the vaccine---even though I came to a different conclusion and got it anyway. My point was that we balance rights all the time, and the Covid vaccine is yet another issue that has more than one correct point of view.
My apologies. It's on me, not you.
That is gracious of you, and I appreciate it. But I'm sure I could have written it more clearly. We march on, all of us, trying our best for clarity and Not Getting Covid!
I think you both have touched on a central point here. As a libertarian, I often must wrestle with these competing values.
I also think you will find that many people can't grasp this struggle at all because, as Andrew the Great! pointed out, they don't understand the basic conception of rights articulated by the Founding Fathers.
In another context, I put it this way: The question isn't why. It's why not? That is, why can't I own X or do Y? And the burden is on society to provide very compelling evidence that I can't.
Many people have something like the inverse conception in their heads. They assume they must provide a compelling reason to society for why they should be allowed to own X or do Y. For instance, they assume their only choices are get vaccinated or come up with a "valid exemption."
Your comment is well-said, Jordan, thanks. Many rules in our society meet the "provide compelling evidence" test: stopping at red lights to prevent auto accidents is universally accepted, as is "don't murder people." Other rules are passed only for political control purposes: New York requires a politician to decide if you are "worthy" of getting a concealed carry license, and "self-defense" is not a "good enough reason."
Yes, as a NY (Hudson Valley) resident, I am well aware. I was actually thinking about guns when I formulated the "why not?" question. The question/objection on my mind was people who said: "Why would anyone need an AR-15?" It struck me as the wrong question, akin to asking, "Why would anyone need a super-charged muscle car?"
Of course, no one *needs* an AR-15 or muscle car. But as free citizens coming from an American tradition, we should be thinking more in terms of wants and asking: "Why WOULDN'T someone have an AR-15 or a super-charged muscle car if they want one?"
And then we would have to answer that question with very compelling reasons backed by strong evidence.
Not to be argumentative, but even the point you made about red lights is worth considering further. I was reminded of "shared space" theory and the researchers who showed that even in that case, it is sometimes better to ask: Why not? As in: Why not let people figure out intersections on their own?
It turns out that it might actually *reduce* accidents and fatalities (in certain cases):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm curious. You wrote: "It is about protecting those in the community who are more vulnerable." What if it turns out that being vaccinated has little or no impact on one's ability to transmit the virus? Would you change your mind and support these people's right to choose?
You also wrote: "The science behind mRNA vaccines is voluminous and they have not presented any significant side effects since their rollout last year." My understanding is that all new drugs are evaluated short term and longer term because not all side effects and issues come to light in the short term. (An example would be Merck's Vioxx, which it took nearly 10 years to discover could be deadly). So: What if it turns out that these vaccines have longer-term side effects, such as raising the risk of heart attacks? Would you change your mind and support these people's right to choose?
I am genuinely interested in your perspective since I am coming from the other side and will obviously have blind spots because of my bias. My guess is that perhaps we have different assumptions, which is why I am asking these questions. I appreciate any engagement you're willing to offer.
“It is about protecting those in the community who are more vulnerable”
—————————————————-
It does not protect vulnerable people unless *they* take it. This is just sanctimony. It does not stop the virus from spreading.
According to the CDC VAERS (adverse event) database, as of 30 Nov 2021, there have 8,300 deaths associated with Covid-19 vaccines as a "side effect".
Now please give us the number of deaths from covid-19 as a "side-effect".
Of *healthy* people under 40? It’s like 3,000.
So all 8300 incidences of vaccine related deaths are:
1. proven to be from the vaccine (and not "I crashed my car 2 weeks after getting vaccinated, it must be related!")
2. of healthy people under 40?
Not to mention, source please on 3000. The figures I can find for covid deaths <40 overall (2021) say ~20000.
VAERS is terrible. We have no clue how many people are dying from the vaccine. People are vaccinated in stadiums and random pharmacies and Walmarts and then they leave. I’m sure you think it’s like 4 or 5 people who have died.
20,000 is the number of people under 40 who have died total. I said ‘healthy’ and that number is likely far below 3,000.
So it was just a guess
Okay sorry I’m sure AT LEAST 10,000 of the 20,000 young people who died from this disease that targets medical conditions were perfectly healthy.
Does that make you feel better? Maybe they were ALL healthy!!!!
I’m not digging through spreadsheets for you right now because you argue by tediously demanding a link when I’m stating the obvious. We both know it’s 3,000 at most and likely much less.
It helps that I know that you know I’m right.
😂😂
Nobody asked you to dig through spreadsheets, just to not spread "your best guess" numbers pulled out of nowhere as data.
Yes you are quite literally suggesting that I should be digging through spreadsheets because I absolutely would have to dig through spreadsheets in order to find that number.
So first you demand tedious work to verify the obvious and now you are lying about your demand for tedious work.
I love the internet.
🙏🙏
"The science behind mRNA vaccines is voluminous and they have not presented any significant side effects since their rollout last year. They are the most monitored vaccines ever distributed so that if any of the known side effects evolved into something previously unseen, recipients can be assessed and treated accordingly."
None of what you claim is true. Moreover, if the vaccines were as perfect as you describe, vaccinated people would not contract COVID. But they do. This is not a one-size fits all matter and your lack of respect for the rights of individuals is appalling.
Bruce - unless you can show me exactly where I am wrong, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take my 26 years of Nursing/Medical expertise over your bloviating. You're not covering yourself in glory today mate.
There are people with far more experience and scientific knowledge than you have, eminent epidemiologists and physicians with doctoral level knowledge and intellect, who have argued for herd immunity over lockdowns. Unfortunately they were overruled by people like you who argue more from emotion than science, and so we find ourselves in this mess today of prolonged lockdowns that accomplish nothing. Florida, by the way, now has the lowest rates of death and illness from Wuhan/Covid19 virus even after eliminating all mandates on vaccines, masks, or closures.
Poor appeal to authority - as if your 26 years makes you infallible, omniscient, and pure.
Not sure what you do for a living but if you did it for 26 years--I would trust your opinion on how to do it over information that I find on the web. That is the whole problem today--people think they are smarter than skilled people in their field just b/c they can google a conspiracy theory of which they have not tangible skills or experience to feed upon to help them decipher the points of misinformation.
What if someone else with 26 years' experience had an opposite opinion?
Now what do you do??
I'm not smarter IN MEDICINE than the 26-year doctor. But I have reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, and I can apply them to nonmedical matters. Even to stuff I find [gasp!] on the web.
Like when a different 26-year doctor has a different opinion.
Interestingly, you haven't touched on the issues of the good doc's infallibility, omniscience, influence by politics or money, etc. He's a stranger (and one who *professes* to have 26 years' experience; how do we know that *that's* even true? After all, Dean M.'s assertion as to his expertise is found on...the web.
Heck, how do you even know he's a doctor?
Much like fiat currencies, appeals to authority (credentials) have also succumbed to widespread devaluation. Notwithstanding, the bonafides of the doctor interviewed by Bari a few episodes back trumps your 'not bloviating' stance.
Well especially when the ‘appeal to authority’ is that you’re a doctor or a lawyer.
Being a doctor requires 1) the ability to read and 2) the ability to remember things that you read. It’s not physics or computer science.
There is actually quite a lot of physics in being a doctor and it takes as much or more smarts than computer science--just a different skill set. And, you have to be able to decipher research which is what many blowhards here have difficulty with.
I’m not talking about that level of physics. The pre req was 100 level when I was in school.
This does not mean doctors can’t be ‘smart’. I’m sure some of them also could have gone on to high levels in subjects that require more than simply reading and remembering things.
Becoming a doctor takes a lot of discipline. That’s laudable. Although I’m skeptical it will even require discipline for much longer.
Med schools are about to fall victim to woke/antiracism ideology, to boost the number of "under represented" minorities in the profession. Pretty soon, we'll have to go to Mexico to find a good doctor. But hey at least the medical profession will look like Grey's Anatomy cast!
You are wrong in assuming that the vaccines prevent (in a sustained way) the contraction or spread of the virus.